In My Time - Dick Cheney [70]
One of the innovations Newt came up with was for him and many of the other new Republicans to use the “one-minutes,” which were short speeches at the beginning of each day’s session, to really go after Jimmy Carter and his administration. Using one-minutes to go on the attack was typical of Newt: clever, creative, and very successful. It fired up the troops and fed the media. It was not, however, my personal cup of tea.
My style was more restrained, and I was reluctant to speak unless I had something I really wanted to say—and then I’d save it for debate. I didn’t garner a lot of publicity this way, but I found that at least some of my colleagues appreciated what I wasn’t doing. I was at the rail at the back of the chamber, leaning over, watching one of my freshman colleagues give a barnburner of a speech—pounding on the podium and really letting the Democrats have it—when one of the senior Republicans came over, put his arm around my shoulder, and said, “You know what I like about you, Cheney? You are the only member of your whole class who doesn’t drool when he speaks!” I took that as high praise.
I wasn’t part of Newt’s Conservative Opportunity Society, the group with which he plotted the takeover of the House, but he encouraged my chief of staff, Dave Gribbin, to sit in on the regular meetings. And on occasion, when Newt would push too hard or take some action that angered the senior members of the caucus or the leadership, he would come to my office and seek my counsel on what he’d done to ruffle so many feathers and how best to patch things up. Our relationship was useful in maintaining some degree of peace among the Republicans in the House. For the leadership I served as a bridge to the younger, more aggressive members. For Newt I provided knowledge of which lines he shouldn’t step over if he didn’t want to get in a pile of trouble. And for me, my role allowed me to be identified on the one hand as part of the Republican establishment and on the other as someone who had close ties to that younger generation, eager to overthrow the establishment.
I REMEMBER WELL THE afternoon when I sought recognition by the Speaker and then rose to address the House of Representatives for the first time as a member. I was less than thrilled with the subject matter, which dealt with one of the many sad cases the Ethics Committee had to pass judgment on. Charles Diggs was a longtime congressman from Michigan’s 13th District. He had been one of the bright young men of the civil rights movement, and he had been elected the first chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus. Now he had been convicted of taking kickbacks from his congressional staff, but while he was appealing his case, his Michigan constituents had reelected him.
An incensed group of members, mostly Republican and led by Newt Gingrich, were demanding his expulsion, but the Ethics Committee recommended censure instead, a decision I was happy to defend. As I pointed out in my speech, the Constitution clearly gives the House the right to expel a member, but it also bestows upon the people the right to choose their representatives, and the people of Michigan’s 13th had chosen Diggs even after he was convicted. “Much as I deplore Mr. Diggs’ unethical behavior,” I said, “much as I believe that he should no longer serve in the House of Representatives, I cannot support the contention that this body should now take the unprecedented step in these circumstances, of setting aside the right of the voters of Michigan’s 13th District to select the congressman of their choice.” The vote to censure rather than expel Diggs passed by an overwhelming majority.
The most important cases considered during my term on the Ethics Committee stemmed from the so-called Abscam scandal. The “Ab” in Abscam was short for Abdul Enterprises